History of the 1995 Schism

In 1995,
five Bishops of the Matthewites, created a schism within the Synod over
the issue of a Latin originated icon of the Holy Trinity.

These Latin icons were popular even among the
Greek Old Calendarists. For instance, the first seal ("stamp")
used by the Holy Synod of the True Orthodox Church of Greece, had the
Latin "Holy Trinity" icon as the picture on the stamp. This
stamp was used to authenticate all documents, including the consecration
certificate of Bishop Matthew, the Encyclical of 1935, and other
documents. Additionally, St. Nectarios had this icon on his epigonation,
and he gave this epigonation to Bishop Matthew as a gift. Bishop Matthew
would wear this epigonation on great feast days, and it is currently
kept at the Convent of the Entry of the Theotokos, our Lady the
Pefkovounogiatrissa, at Keratea, Attica. This same epigonation is
visible in one of the photographs of Bishop Matthew.

So as you can see, despite the fact that this is
a Latin icon, and despite the fact that its use has been condemned by a
Pan-Orthodox Council, and at least one local council, yet this same icon
is still very close to many Orthodox Christians, even True Orthodox
Christians, and was even used by St. Nectarios and by our own Bishop
Matthew.

However... the truth is that this is a Latin
icon, and is not in the Orthodox tradition. When this information began
to be preached, in pamphlets and books, and especially by members of our
own Synod (Archimandrite Stephanos, his student Chrysaphios, the French
Fr. Cassian Braun, etc), back in the late 1980s and early '90s, this
caused an immediate dissention among the simple faithful, who could not
understand how it was possible that the icon they came to know and love
since childhood, happened to be Latin and condemned by the Orthodox
Church.

A turmoil began during the early 90's, after several
monks and theologians started criticizing this westernized
non-traditional iconography (mainly the western icons of the "New
Testament" Holy Trinity and of the Resurrection). The majority of
the Bishops were strongly opposed to this criticism and condemned the
criticism and critics as the "neo-iconoclasm" and
"neo-iconoclasts". So what was the result? Schism and
division. The Five Bishops, decided to use this issue of
iconography to condemn Archbishop Andreas of Athens, and try to have him
deposed, in order to take over the throne of Athens. We will show that
they really didn't care about the icon issue, but were only using this
as an excuse. We know this, because their main spokesman, Chrysostom of
Thessalonica, did not use the Latin icons in the past. He knew all too
well from his theological studies that they were not Orthodox.

In 1992 an Encyclical (the so-called "First
Encyclical") was issued, signed by all hierarchs. It stated, for
the sake of "preventing disagreements and dissensions", that
all icons "which the Tradition of the Church accepted and
established are to be revered and venerated". Later that year the
Synod proclaimed, "all pamphlets, undersigned, by pseudonyms or
anonymous, do not express the attitude of the Synod and are being
condemned and rejected, because they created confusion in the Church and
an unacceptable splitting".

However, this Encyclical did not bring peace to the
Church. Though monks and theologians accused of the
"neo-iconoclastic heresy" all accepted the First Encyclical,
and some of them even retracted their writings, the majority of the
Bishops kept insisting on "anathematizing" the "new
iconoclastic heresy" and the "new iconoclasts" by name.
This was in spite of the synodal decision’s statement that "all
those who accept the First Encyclical are being freed of all
accusations".For that purpose the majority of the Bishops, those to
become "the five", insisted on a new ("Second")
Encyclical. This “Second Encyclical" was neither a "Synodal
Encyclical" nor a "Synodal Resolution". It was a private,
unfinished, unrevised, uncorrected, first-draft, temporary encyclical,
that was signed only under the conditions that the encyclical will
remain as a private file of the Synod, not to be endorsed, neither
viewed as an official Synodal Encyclical, nor officially accepted until
the next Synodal meeting is convened to validate and/or correct it. The
fact that certain people published this private encyclical and falsely
presented it as an "official" "Synodal Encyclical"
was an uncanonical act. All of the bishops signed the encyclical.
However Archbishop Andreas and Archbishop Epiphanios were *FORCED* to
sign it!!! Metropolitans Nikolaos and Pachomios were not forced, but
when they re-examined it, they announced that they did not agree with
it. The entire Synod later re-convened, and *ALL OF THE BISHOPS*
retracted the Encyclical! The entire Synod agreed to retract it
"until further notice”. The official position of the Holy Synod
of Archbishop Andreas is that the "Second Encyclical" is
unacceptable. A plan of that Encyclical (a draft, not a definite
version) was initially signed by all Bishops, under the condition to be
additionally judged, corrected and examined by theologians and all
members of the Synod. Despite this decision, one of "the five"
(Bishop Matthew of Attica) hastily published this plan as "The
Second Encyclical" and disseminated it from the synodal address
around Greece and abroad. It is important to note that this
"Encyclical" anathematized some, if not entirely truthful, at
least controversial statements. (And this was essentially the spirit of
"the movement of the five" - they were very quick to
ANATHEMATIZE anything they themselves do not consider Orthodox, fully
disregarding any precedents in the Church history.) Afterwards,
Archbishop Andreas, two other Bishops and a secretary of the Synod
retracted their signatures from the plan.

Metropolitan Pachomios did not
"retract" his signature alone. Neither did Archbishop Andreas,
neither did Metropolitan Nicholaos. They retracted their signatures
"synodically" (and so, too, did the five former Metropolitans)
when the entire Matthewite Synod agreed to dismiss the "icon
issue", and allow the theologians to discuss the issue.In July 1994
the Synod met and unanimously decided that a new plan of the new
encyclical should be created, after a thorough theological and
philological examination. The same day, after the synodal meeting, the
five Bishops separately met and wrote a text ("Clarification")
where they stated that the new plan does not mean that the previous one,
i.e. "The Second Encyclical", is being retracted. They signed
this text as "THE Members of the Holy Synod", which in Greek
implies that they are the Holy Synod, and that there are no other
members of the Synod beside them. The Archbishop responded, warning them
that their action was a parasynodical and anticanonical act and called
them to retract the text, but there was no response.

In accordance with the decision of the Synod, the
theologians began meeting to examine the controversies regarding the
icons (August to October 1994). The last Synodal meeting was on October
16, 1994 (there were 6 meetings of the Synod during 1994 – this is
important because the major accusation against the Archbishop, by
"the five", was that he did not want to call any synodal
meetings). Several days later Bishop Matthew addressed the Archbishop
with a request to convoke the Meeting of the Synod. The Archbishop
responded that he agreed and in the personal letters to all hierarchs
suggested themes for the discussion at the meeting. For two months
"the five" metropolitans had not responded to his letter. The
Archbishop again addressed them (17 January, 1995) and proposed the date
of the Meeting as March 1st. On the 4th of February the five
metropolitans sent letter by which they refused to accept the meeting
during the days of the Lent, and proposed the 15th of February. The
Archbishop responded that it was unacceptable because there was not
enough time for the Metropolitan of Cyprus to plan and organize his
travel, and insisted that they submit their proposals for the topics of
the Meeting. Since there was no response to his letters, he postponed
the meeting.On the 6th of March "the five" metropolitans
informed the Archbishop that they do not want to submit the proposed
topics in writing but only at the meeting of the Permanent Synod, which
they, in the tone of ultimatum, requested to be convoked in the
following two weeks (note that Lent was not a problem any more).
Eventually the Archbishop convoked the meeting of the Permanent Synod
for the 1st of June, with only one theme - the convocation of the
Meeting of the full Synod and determination of its date (in his letter
sent on the 25th of May).

Two days later, on 27 May, the five
metropolitans announced "The Act - Decision" (dated 10 May!),
by which they accuse the Archbishop of anticanonical actions, remove him
from the archiepiscopal throne, suspend him from service, call him to
court to give an apology in 30 days, and elect as a locum tenens
Metropolitan Gregory.

Why in 1995, did the five Metropolitans bring
the issue into their own hands, and create a parasynagogue, supposedly
"suspending" Archbishop Andreas, "in absentia",
without his knowledge or presence, and without calling a Council, nor
inviting the remaining bishops of the Synod? The truth is that
Archbishop Andreas was never canonically "suspended" nor
deposed. Then, suddenly, the five former metropolitans could not wait
any longer (they wanted to get the Archbishop "deposed" and
sent to a monastery so that they themselves can take over the
Archdiocese and Monasteries). Hence, the five former metropolitans
joined together in their own "meeting" or parasynagogue"
(contrary to the canons) and without the knowledge or presence of the
Archbishop (again, contrary to the canons), and without inviting the
other Metropolitans of the Synod (again, contrary to the canons),
"suspended" the Archbishop "in absentia" (again,
contrary to the canons), without a trial or council (again, contrary to
the canons), and the “five” say they asked the Archbishop to
"appear before them", even though they had already broken
communion from him and ceased to commemorate his name (again, contrary
to the canons), and thus caused a schism in the Church (again, contrary
to the canons).The five Metropolitans *NEVER* "asked" for
Archbishop Andreas to "present himself to the Synod".
Archbishop Andreas *LIVES* at the Synodal headquarters!!! The “five”
bishops "suspended" him "in absentia", without a
trial, without calling him, without even summoning the entire Synod, or
inviting the Archbishop! The five bishops did not invite the Archbishop!
They rather called their own "meeting" (parasynagogue) and
illegally and uneconomically "suspended" the Archbishop,
without inviting the Archbishop, and without inviting the other
Metropolitans of the Synod. By going through with this uncanonical
"suspension", your bishops ceased commemorating the name of
the Archbishop, and thereby your bishops fell into schism. The five
former metropolitans then reaffirmed the "Second Encyclical"
(which they had previously synodically retracted) and used it as a
reason for why they created their schism. The Archbishop, as the
PRESIDENT of the Holy Synod, is the only one with authority to call a
council meeting!On 2 June the session of the permanent Synod (under
Archbishop Andreas) took place and the action of "the five"
was judged as a coup, and five metropolitans were suspended from
service. During the following two weeks hierarchs, with mediation of
Metropolitan Epiphanios of Cyprus, attempted to meet wit "the
five", but to no avail. The five Metropolitans proclaimed
themselves as "the new Synod", with a new seal, a new protocol
number and new quarters.

Archbishop Andreas called the Holy Synod to convene.
The “five” bishops did not attend because they had already convened
a false "synod" (parasynagogue) of their own, and they fell
into schism. The Archbishop and his fellow Metropolitans, as well as
Archbishop Epiphanios of Cyprus, elected five new candidates and
consecrated them to replace the five bishops that fell into schism. The
Synod of Archbishop Andreas, however, continues to regard the 1993
encyclical as null. The Synod of Archbishop Andreas follows a moderate
opinion in regards to the icon issue. The icon issue is interpreted with
theological accuracy, however the Latin icons are permitted to be
venerated because the Orthodox Church has done so for the past two
hundred years without problems, and if they were to be discontinued at
the present state, it would scandalize the faithful. Hence, the Latin
icons are venerated according to the 1991 encyclical. However, the 1992
encyclical is unacceptable and incompatible with Orthodox Patristic
Tradition, hence it remains null, as it was never endorsed, never
officially accepted by the Holy Synod, never officially signed, never
approved, never affirmed, and never revised or corrected. It remains as
a temporary, unfinished encyclical of no ecclesiastical value, null and
void. In 1995, the five Metropolitans departed from the Holy Synod
before the theologians had formally finished their resolution. The five
Metropolitans then endorsed the 1993 encyclical as an
"official" encyclical and even used it as a basis for a list
of anathemas they added to the Synodicon of Orthodoxy in 1997.

Neither Archbishop Andreas nor any of "his"
clerics have ever thrown any icons out of the churches, or, God forbid,
broke the icons.

Heresy of the Five Metropolitans

In their "Third Encyclical" (1997)
they misinterpret and anathematize many traditional iconographic
motives, and decree that "from now onwards" the titles of the
icons are to be changed - they've changed the title of the traditional
icon of the Resurrection, changing its title to "the descent into
Hades". They anathematized the Rublov style of the icon of the Holy
Trinity, which they do not accept as Orthodox [do you hear, our Russian
brothers, Saint Sergius was a heretic and cacodox!]; they change all
titles of this icon to "the philoxenia of Avraam". Similarly,
they decreed that all icons of the Pentecost on which there is no
Theotokos are "irregular" i.e. not Orthodox – they command
that from now on all such icons must be written only with Theotokos in
the middle. Etc.There were also a few other heretical theories that the
five former Metropolitans embraced. Here are the three major ones that
caused the schism of 1995:

1. God the Father (supposedly) created forms and
images of himself to appear to the prophets, and then caused these forms
or images to disappear. They were never real, they were just forms and
images created in order for people to see God the Father. (This theory
was condemned by the Ecumenical Council under St Gregory Palamas.)

2. Whenever God appeared to the Prophets, the Son
supposedly) never appeared in the Father's place, but the Father always
appeared in person. (This theory is condemned by many Ecumenical and
Local Councils, as well as in the Patristic Writings. This theory also
contradicts the Holy Scriptures themselves.)

3. The fundamental basis of Orthodox Iconography is
(supposedly) not the ensarcosis of Christ and the theosis of the Saints.
(This theory is directly against the teachings of the Seventh Ecumenical
Council).

These Neo-Frankish heresies have been condemned by
previous Holy Councils of the Orthodox Church. This is why they are
unacceptable.

Three years after creating their schism, the five
former Metropolitans introduced outright heretical
"Neo-Frankish" and "Neo-Iconoclastic" teachings,
which were far worse than the "Second Encyclical" itself. The
five former Metropolitans then "anathematized" anyone who
follows the traditional Orthodox teachings, thereby indirectly
"anathematizing" the Holy Scriptures, Councils and Fathers.
But these "anathemas" are automatically rebounded and cast
upon the heads of the five former metropolitans and their followers,
since it is impossible to "anathematize" that which is holy.

The Gregorian Synod was only schismatic in 1995,
but ever since then, it has pathed itself closer and closer towards
outright heresy, especially after 1998, when the false Christ also
appeared to St John the Theologian, after the Resurrection. Christ
appeared to him as the "Ancient of Days". Christ said, I am He
who lived, died, and behold, I live again! Christ said this at the time
that St John the Theologian describes Him exactly the same way that the
Prophet Daniel describes the "Ancient of Days". In the
hymnology of the Orthodox Church we find excerpts that speak of the
"Ancient of Days" being born of a Virgin. Popi, who was born
of a Virgin?

The Ancient of Days *IS* the "Image of God the
Father". We can venerate the icon of the "Ancient of
Days" knowing that it is the "Image of God the Father".
But we must remember that the Scriptures and Holy Fathers tell us that
the "Image of God the Father" is none other than the Logos,
the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. The "Ancient of Days"
can be venerated as the "Image of God the Father". But it is a
Barlaamite Neo-Frankish heresy to believe that this "Image of God
the Father" was "created", and that it is not the Logos
of God Himself. The depiction of the Holy Spirit as a dove is permitted
for the icon of the Theophany. The Dove is also permitted to be
iconographized alone. In many places, the Dove was iconographized alone.
It appeared above altars, above baptistries, etc.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council anathematizes a
certain Persian called Xenaeas, because this fellow asserted that it is
"infantile knowledge" (i.e. childish) to depict and venerate
the Holy Spirit in the form of a Dove. The text of this anathema is
found in Act 5, p. 819 of the second volume of the Conciliar Records.

Similarly, the "Ancient of Days" has always
been iconographized alone, not together with the complete description of
the Prophet Daniel's vision.

I have always known that the "Image of God
the Father" can be depicted as the "Ancient of Days",
just as He was seen in the vision of the Prophet Daniel. We venerate
this icon with the knowledge that it is not God the Father in person,
but is rather the "Image of God the Father", which is the
Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Jesus Christ can be
depicted alone as the Incarnate Word of God, for His incarnation is the
basic principle of Iconography.

The Holy Spirit can be depicted alone in the
form of a Dove, just as it was seen at Theophany.

It is only when these Images are combined into
one icon, that the confusion arises. The Symbols are definitely
Orthodox, but the assemblage of the western Holy Trinity icon is
somewhat theologically unsound.

The "Ancient of Days" has a nimbus
because it is Christ and Christ is the "Image of God the
Father". There is nothing wrong with portraying the nimbus (the
cross within the halo) upon the image of the "Ancient of
Days". It should definitely be there.

Christ is not forbidden as a lamb. I checked the
canon. It says that wherever a Lamb appears representing Christ, such as
was the Symbolic depiction in the early years of Christianity, as
"the Lamb that taketh away the Sins of the World", this type
is respected, however it would be better if Christ was depicted in the
form of his incarnate human nature. The canon does not forbid the
depiction of a Lamb to resemble Christ, it only says that Christ in the
human form is preferred.

No one contradicts that God *created* images for the
bodiless *creatures*. But did God the Father "create" an image
of Himself? The Holy Scriptures tell us that Christ is the Eternal Image
of the Father. Whoever has seen Christ, has seen the Father also. Yes,
the Father did send an Image to be seen by the Prophets. But this image
was not "created" (as the five Bishops believe).
This Image was the Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, our
Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, the Eternal Image of the Father.

The theory that God supposedly reveals Himself in
"created" symbols is one of the heresies of Barlaam, and this
heresy was anathematized by the Ecumenical Council under St Gregory
Palamas.

The “five” have publicly and officially fallen
into the Neo-Frankish heresy of Barlaam, in that God "created"
images of Himself. Your Synod has fallen into iconoclasm by denying the
fundamental principle of iconography as outlined by the Seventh
Ecumenical Council. Your Synod has transgressed against the Holy
Scriptures and Patristic Writings that confirm that no one has seen the
Father but Christ, and that Christ is the Eternal Image of the Father,
and whoever has seen Christ has seen the Father. These fundamental
doctrines of the Orthodox Church have been cast out by your Synod. Your
Synod has completely denied them, and has blasphemously
"anathematized" anyone who follows the Patristic Tradition and
refuses follow the opinions of your Synod.The Synod of the “five”
has indirectly "anathematized" the Holy Fathers of the Seventh
Ecumenical Council, the Holy Fathers of the Council under St Gregory
Palamas, the Holy Fathers and Patristic Writers and many of the Saints.
But can the Saints be anathematized? Can Orthodoxy be anathematized?
Anyone who "anathematizes" Orthodoxy, is himself thrice-fold
anathema because all "anathemas" against Orthodoxy are
rebounded and cast upon those who falsely "anathematize" the
True Faith. Also another factor in the schism of the “five” was that
the monasteries of Kouvara and Keratea are stavropegial. This means that
they are under the direction and canonical supervision of the
Archbishop. Archbishop Matthew was the canonical supervisor of the
monasteries until his repose. Metropolitan Andreas of Patras became the
canonical supervisor until the election of a new Archbishop. In 1957,
Bishop Agathangelos was elected as Archbishop and thus became the
canonical supervisor of the monasteries. In 1972, Bishop Andreas of
Patras was elected as Archbishop of Athens and therefore became the
supervisor of the monasteries. In 1990, Metropolitan Matthew of Attica
and Megaris sent an epistle to the Holy Synod requesting to take
possession of the monasteries because they were within his diocese. He
didn't seem to have that problem for the past decade that he was bishop
of that same region, why the sudden change agitation? The Holy Synod
resolved that the Archbishop will remain as the canonical supervisor of
the monasteries until his repose. This angered Metropolitan Matthew,
and... tada... he began using the government forces and state courts to
try to take the monasteries away from the Archbishop.That didn't work,
so Metropolitan Matthew started spreading lies, calling the Archbishop
an "Anti-trinitarian" and "Iconoclast". That didn't
work, so he created a schism and took half the nuns of the Keratea
Convent with him (these nuns still live in the monastery but they are
under the Metropolitan of Attica and Megaris). The entire Kouvara
Monastery and half of the nuns of the Keratea monastery remained with
the Archbishop, who is the canonical supervisor of the monasteries, as
was supported by the decree of the Holy Synod. There is ample evidence
of the reasons behind Metropolitan Matthew of Attica and Megara's
schism. I have many documents, including a letter dating prior to the
schism of 1995 in which Metropolitan Matthew of Attica and Megaris wrote
to his nephew on Mt Athos. Among the many things this letter reveals is
the words: "There is no iconomachia issue!" This letter was in
the archives of the Metropolis of Attica and Megaris, and it was made
public before the schism of 1995. Furthermore, we have the testimony of
witnesses who were present at the Pascha service in 1994 in which
Metropolitan Chrysostom of Thessalonica used the "Tis eis Adou
Kathodos" icon for the feast of Pascha! Many of the people that
were in favour of the western icons got upset and started to fuss over
why Metropolitan Chrysostom had committed this "shameful" act.
In the end, it just proves that there never really was an iconomachia
issue. The two ringleaders of the five metropolitans (Matthew of Attica
and Megaris and Chrysostom of Thessalonica) proved by their very
writings and actions *before* the schism that there really wasn't an
iconomachia issue. The issue was based on power, control and possession.

Holy Canons and Holy Writings

The Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople
under Patriarch Sophronios II, in 1776: "It has been councilliary
decreed that the so-called icon of the Holy Trinity is an innovation,
alien and not accepted by the Apostolic Catholic Orthodox Church. It has
penetrated the Orthodox Church from the Latins." "Anathemas" against the Holy
Scriptures, Councils and Fathers were "hurled”. As you can see,
the issue has nothing to do with the alleged "Neo-Iconoclasm".
The truth is that the five former Metropolitans were using the Latin
icons as a means to bring the above three Neo-Frankish heresies into the
realm of Orthodoxy. If you wish to continue venerating the Latin icons,
then by all means, venerate them. No one is stopping you. But if you are
going to use these Latin icons as a means of introducing Neo-Frankish
heresies that have been condemned by previous Orthodox Councils, then
you are going one step too far. The schism of 1995 was not caused by the
supposed "Neo-Iconoclasm" of Archbishop Andreas. The schism of
1995 was rather caused by the real "Neo-Frankism" of the five
former Metropolitans.The Holy Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council
permit the visions of the Prophets. Christ was seen by the Prophets in
the Old Testament, so He can be iconographized the way he was seen.